Hello everyone,
Pullum's post is very interesting, and his example does exemplify the distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic communication very well. I guess when non-linguists refer to the language of animals or flowers, they just consider 'language' in its purely semiotic sense as a set of symbols used to convey certain messages. But, of course, conveying meaning, i.e. communicating, is far more complicated than this, at least in that we can communicate verbally or non-verbally. Non-verbal communication happens everyday, and it's sometimes even harder to pin down what a non-verbal act of communication can convey since, in the absence of an explicit linguistic sign, one only has the various contextual factors to consider besides the perceptual input. Just think of how many things you can convey with a smile, a yawn or a shrug of your shoulders (of course, some non-verbal forms are more conventionalized than others).
Still, language is the most conventionalized means of communication. But, I guess what is fascinating about language is not what it communicates, but how it communicates. Therefore, when I read Chomsky's rather dry definition of language, I always feel like saying: and...? Still, at least his view of language is not as pessimistic as that of the deconstructionalists. As I am just starting to read these days a book called "Paradigms of Reading" (Mackenzie, 2002), I am struck by the grim deconstructionalist view of language as utterly random, arbitrary, irresponsible (I know some poeple who can be irresponsible with their words, but not to the extent of generalizing it to all language :) ), and, ironically, inhuman. I especially like the quote from Paul de Man who says: "the interpretation of everyday language is a Sisyphean task, a task without end and without progress", well.. yes it can seem like that sometimes, esp. when you are writing a thesis in linguistics or stuck in a stupid chat with a really talkative person, but not all the time.. right?
By the way, in case you are wondering who I am, I am a new PhD research student at Middlesex, which means I don't know any other students of linguistics, so at least we get to discuss language stuff here. I love the idea of this blog, thanks to Billy for setting it up, and hope we will be sharing lots of interesting ideas.
p.s. I wonder if the weird "communicatam" should better be "communicaram" since, apparently, the word 'communicate' originally comes from the Latin 'communicare' (“to share”)? Oh, forget it, they are both weird anyway.
Mai
Comments